Delhi Court May 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 9 of about 292 results (0.022 seconds)National thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (Ntpc) Vs. Siemens Atiengesell ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(2)ARBLR172(Delhi); 121(2005)DLT36; 2005(83)DRJ46
R. C. Jain, J.1. This appeal under Section 37(2)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Section 151 CPC is directed against the Partial Award dated 31st July, 2002 made by the International Chamber of Commerce, Arbitration Tribunal. Facts and circumstances giving rise to the appeal may be noted as under.2. On 6th December 1989 the parties entered into a contract for setting up of 817 MW Gas Based Combined Cycle Power Project at Dadri in U.P. at a price of DEM 324,405,000/- equivalent to Rs. 2,190,000,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand One Hundred Ninety Million). At the request of respondent-SAG, three separate contracts were entered into with cross-fall breach clause. One contract was with respondent-SAG, known as the 'First Contract' and the other with its associates, namely, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL), New Delhi and the third with Siemens Limited, Bombay. Considerable delay occurred in execution of the contract which was mo...
Tag this Judgment!National Institute of Banking Studies and Corporation Management (Nibs ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(2)ARBLR200(Delhi); 120(2005)DLT563
R.C. Jain, J.1. This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called as the 'Act') is directed against the Order of the Sole Arbitrator {Mr. justice, C.L. Chaudhary (Retd)} dated 6.2.2004, whereby the learned Arbitrator has directed deletion of certain counter-claims of the appellant from the scope of the Arbitration Proceedings.2. In short the relevant facts giving rise to the present appeal are that an Agreement for construction was executed between the parties on 20.4.1996 whereby the respondent was to construct a building-Northern India Bank Staff Training College at Campus Project at Plot No. A-30, Sector 62, Institutional Area, Noida for the appellant. Disputes/differences arose between the parties with regard to the said contract and the respondent appointed one Mr. L.R. Pahwa as the Arbitrator to adjudicate upon certain claims. However, a petition (AA No. 182/2001) under Section 11 of the Act was also moved for appointment of the Arbitr...
Tag this Judgment!Mridula Priyadarshani Vs. University of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 121(2005)DLT136; 2005(83)DRJ455
Gita Mittal, J.1. The petitioner has challenged a condition imposed for eligibility for seeking admission to the B.A.(pass) Course of the Non-Formal Education Cell whereby it is required that in order to be eligible for enrolment with this course, the candidate should have passed the Senior Secondary Certificate(class 12th examination) conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education from a school and examination centre (in the case of private candidates) located within the National Capital of Delhi jurisdiction or the University.2. The undisputed facts giving rise to the present petition are noticed hereinafter. The petitioner is a resident of Delhi living in Vinod Nagar. She undertook the class 10th examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education from the Mayur Public School located behind Mother Dairy in the I.P. Extension at Delhi. Thereafter the petitioner enrolled herself for pursuing the class 12th course and examination with the National Institute of Open...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Gupta (Since Deceased Through Lrs. Mrs. Saroj Gupta, Mr. Puneet G ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 122(2005)DLT437; 2005(82)DRJ513
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Ex.PW-1/1 is the foundation of the present suit. It reads as under :' RECEIPTReceived Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs.one lac only) in cash from Shri S.K.Gupta, S/o Shri R.B.Gupta, R/o R-79, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi-110048 as part & advance payment against the sale of our land and property bearing No. T-10, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, measuring 436 sq. yards as per the settled bargain in lump sum of Rs. 25,00,000/-(Rs. twenty five lacs only). This property was registered in our mother's name Smt. Sita Wanti, W/o Shri Bhagat Singh Bedi. It was transferred in her name through succession certificate and also he died on 26th August,1979. This property was mutated in his four sons names.1. Sh. Jagjit Singh Bedi.2. Sh. Avtar Singh Bedi3. Sh. Prithipal Singh Bedi4. Sh. Surjan Singh BediAfter the death of Shri Jagjit Singh Bedi, his wife (i) Mrs. Mohinder Kaur Bedi, (ii) Mrs. Harcharan Kaur Bachcher, (iii) Mrs. Priti Kumra, (iv) Sh. Avtar Singh Bedi (v) Sh. Taranjit Singh Bedi, b...
Tag this Judgment!Delkon (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the General Manager, Bharat Heavy Electri ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(82)DRJ549
Vijender Jain, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, impugns the order passed by the learned Single Judge on May 7, 1999. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner had issued notice invoking the Arbitration Clause for appointment of Arbitrator on 23rd September, 1997. Arbitrator was not appointed by the respondent. The petitioner was constrained to file a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 in September, 1998. It seems that after filing of the petition in the High Court under Section 11(6) for appointment of an Arbitrator the respondent appointed the arbitrator on 3rd May, 1999. When the arbitrator was appointed by the respondent the petitioner filed A.A. No.372/98. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition in the following words :-'This petition is for the appointment of arbitrator. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed on record a copy of fax letter dated 3.5.99 by which an arbitrator has...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Narayan Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 121(2005)DLT166
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. There is an alleged recovery from the petitioner of two packets weighing 1.5 kgs and 500 gms. Both the packets were alleged to contain Heroin. Samples were taken from both these packets and were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis. Insofar as the sample from the packet weighing 500 gms was concerned, it did not test positive for diacetyl morphine (Heroin). So, we are only concerned with the packet weighing 1.5 kgs. The packets are alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner outside the DSOI Club at Dhaula Kuan while the petitioner was waiting to supply the same to some other person. Insofar as the sample taken from this 1.5 kg packet is concerned, the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory indicates that it contained 1.08% diacetyl morphine (Heroin).2. However, when the contraband was produced in the trial court, the counsel for the petitioner found that there were some differences in colour in the allegedly recovered Heroin and what...
Tag this Judgment!Kapil Dev Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 121(2005)DLT380
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. It is a case for the prosecution that a recovery of 500 grams of heroin is said to have been made from the present petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no such recovery was made at all and the petitioner has been framed in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner's father Shri Gulab Singh has, for several years prior to the date of incident, been writing letters and articles with regard to the spread of narcotic drugs and the fact that the people involved in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances were not being apprehended. To substantiate this aspect the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's father had written various letters including letters to the Prime Minister, copies of some of which are placed on record in the present petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that this is the second bail application before this court. The first bail application was rejecte...
Tag this Judgment!Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Century Tubes Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: IV(2005)BC182; 121(2005)DLT122; 2005(83)DRJ420
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. By the present application under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, plaintiff seeks review of the order dated 11.2.2005 by which order IA. No. 4016/03 filed defendant No. 3 under Order 37 Rule 3(5) CPC was disposed of. Defendant No. 3 was granted unconditional leave to defend.2. Review is principally sought on the ground that the plaintiff did not get an opportunity to present its case for the reason when IA. No. 4016/03 came up for hearing on 4.2.2005, counsel for defendant No. 3 made a request for an adjournment. Suit being of the year 1998, adjournment was declined. Defendant No. 3 was directed to file written submissions within three days. Counsel for the plaintiff was given two days time to respond thereto. IA. No. 4016/03 was reserved for orders. No written submissions being received from either party, this court went through the pleadings of the parties on its own and vide order dated 11.2.2005 disposed of IA. No. 4016/03. It is stated in the present application that t...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Kuldip Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 122(2005)DLT428; 2005(82)DRJ527
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Vide order dated 2.8.2004 writ petition was allowed. Counsel for the respondent had not appeared on said date.2. Review is prayed for pointing out to this court that letter dated 29.8.00 written by the Assistant Commissioner, City Zone, MCD has been misread as also the fact that pleadings of MCD in the counter affidavit have not been properly appreciated.3. At the outset it may be recorded that creation is of the counsel for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi who chose not to appear on 2.8.2004 when matter was called.4. Be that as it may since indeed an error has crept in my order dated 2.8.2004, it would be my duty to correct the same. 5. Petitioner prays that the impugned order dated 20.3.2003 be quashed and directions be issued to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to permit the petitioner to carry on business at the tehbazari site allotted to him vide letter dated 29.8.2000 under the signatures of the Assistant Commissioner, City Zone.6. Petitioner was allot...
Tag this Judgment!Prepaid Taxi/Tsr Workers Association Vs. Govt. of National Capital Ter ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 122(2005)DLT108; 2005(83)DRJ338
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. In these writ petitions it has been prayed that the Petitioners should be regularized under the Pre-paid Taxi/TSR Scheme of the Delhi Traffic Police with all consequential service benefits with effect from the date of their initial appointment; that the Respondents be directed to implement the doctrine of equal work, and doing so should pay the Petitioners salaries corresponding to employees working on equivalent posts in the Department of the Delhi Traffic Police; and that the Respondents be directed to give effect to the Report prepared and submitted by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions in March, 1996. Having perused the said Impact Study Report I find nothing therein which would give succor to the Petitioners so far as the temporary and transient nature of their employment is concerned. The gravamen of the said Report is that the functioning of the Pre-paid Taxi/TSR Scheme has been found to be advantageous and salutary so far as the inter...
Tag this Judgment!